Poll

So, anyone want to guess if Blue Origin will be ready for Artemis V?

Yeah, they'll build a robust lander with time to spare.
6 (20%)
They will need many waivers for non-conforming hardware, but they'll make it.
3 (10%)
They will delay Artemis V by some noticeable time span, but eventually they will make it.
13 (43.3%)
SpaceX will have to provide hardware for Artemis V.
8 (26.7%)
Other (please specify)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 30

Voting closed: 06/01/2023 07:41 pm


Author Topic: Starship Artemis Contract & Lunar Starship  (Read 1057051 times)

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 1822
  • Likes Given: 1426
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #20 on: 04/30/2020 06:04 pm »
This is historic. I am so happy to see SpaceX get this contract (with, as usual, the least amount of money) and I look forward to all the amazing information that will come out over the next days and weeks.

Also looking forward to the first fan photoshop showing the three landers next to each other in scale. Might give some perspective to those already questioning Lunar Starship's capabilities.   :D
« Last Edit: 04/30/2020 06:08 pm by punder »

Offline lordkyleofearth

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #21 on: 04/30/2020 06:06 pm »
Is it fair to read this a a possible hedge against SLS not being ready on time? The awards seem to offer paths forward that do not include SLS.

Online rsdavis9

Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #22 on: 04/30/2020 06:09 pm »
So if SS is 400t at landing time.
120t vehicle
150t payload
100t fuel for back to LLO
(120t+150t+100t)*moongravity=600kN
6 10t GOX/GCH4 thrusters
6*10t*earthgravity=588kN

Pretty close to even.
Don't know if 100t to LLO is correct?

EDIT: I just checked
3000m/s LLO velocity
isp of 370 gives 3 for Mass Fraction
360t/120t=3 for mass fraction
So 240t of fuel.
I think I did that right.

« Last Edit: 04/30/2020 06:17 pm by rsdavis9 »
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #23 on: 04/30/2020 06:13 pm »
Earth reentry capability will still be required for the tankers so this doesn't remove heatshield and fins from the program.

For earth return capability just build a second manned starship and have them dock for crew transfer.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #24 on: 04/30/2020 06:15 pm »
Is it fair to read this a a possible hedge against SLS not being ready on time? The awards seem to offer paths forward that do not include SLS.

SLS will be ready by 2024, no problem. SLS is still going to be used to send the Orion +crew to lunar orbit to rendezvous with the lander. Orion will still be returning the crew to Earth.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
  • Liked: 969
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #25 on: 04/30/2020 06:16 pm »
Is it fair to read this a a possible hedge against SLS not being ready on time? The awards seem to offer paths forward that do not include SLS.
Bridenstine says they are still depending on SLS to get humans to cislunar space.

Offline steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2138
  • Liked: 2724
  • Likes Given: 952
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #26 on: 04/30/2020 06:18 pm »
Is it fair to read this a a possible hedge against SLS not being ready on time? The awards seem to offer paths forward that do not include SLS.
Bridenstine says they are still depending on SLS to get humans to cislunar space.
Yep, he has to, doesn't he? He'd get sacked otherwise.

Offline ekanellas

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #27 on: 04/30/2020 06:20 pm »
Really reminds me this very old render from L2.with the top landing engines

Offline AndrewStrogoush

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Dnipro, Ukraine
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 266
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #28 on: 04/30/2020 06:21 pm »
So if SS is 400t at landing time.
120t vehicle
150t payload
100t fuel for back to LLO
(120t+150t+100t)*moongravity=600kN
6 10t GOX/GCH4 thrusters
6*10t*earthgravity=588kN

Pretty close to even.
Don't know if 100t to LLO is correct?

EDIT: I just checked
3000m/s LLO velocity
isp of 370 gives 3 for Mass Fraction
360t/120t=3 for mass fraction
So 240t of fuel.
I think I did that right.

Probably there will be 9 thrusters - angle between visible groups of thrusters looks like 120 degree

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #29 on: 04/30/2020 06:21 pm »
Earth reentry capability will still be required for the tankers so this doesn't remove heatshield and fins from the program.

For earth return capability just build a second manned starship and have them dock for crew transfer.

LEO earth re-entry capability will be required for the tankers. The extra starship would be more money, and SpaceX didn't exactly win the competition for that work.

Anyways, Orion/SLS are redundant like SpaceX dragon 2 cargo is redundant. More expensive? Yes. Could you get along without it? Maybe. Is it going away? Not right now or likely in the near future.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2020 06:28 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline livingjw

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • New World
  • Liked: 5857
  • Likes Given: 2887
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #30 on: 04/30/2020 06:36 pm »
So if SS is 400t at landing time.
120t vehicle
150t payload
100t fuel for back to LLO
(120t+150t+100t)*moongravity=600kN
6 10t GOX/GCH4 thrusters
6*10t*earthgravity=588kN

Pretty close to even.
Don't know if 100t to LLO is correct?

EDIT: I just checked
3000m/s LLO velocity
isp of 370 gives 3 for Mass Fraction
360t/120t=3 for mass fraction
So 240t of fuel.
I think I did that right.

Probably there will be 9 thrusters - angle between visible groups of thrusters looks like 120 degree

Isn't it more like 2000m/s? Also, a sizable portion of your payload is going to be going back up with you.

John

Offline georgionimo

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #31 on: 04/30/2020 06:42 pm »
Would you actually NEED a sea level raptor engine for a ship that never lands on earth and only flies in earth's atmosphere once?

Offline livingjw

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • New World
  • Liked: 5857
  • Likes Given: 2887
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #32 on: 04/30/2020 06:48 pm »
Would you actually NEED a sea level raptor engine for a ship that never lands on earth and only flies in earth's atmosphere once?

No, but you need the thrust and the vacuum Raptor won't fit where the SL Raptors are.

John

Online rsdavis9

Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #33 on: 04/30/2020 06:50 pm »
So if SS is 400t at landing time.
120t vehicle
150t payload
100t fuel for back to LLO
(120t+150t+100t)*moongravity=600kN
6 10t GOX/GCH4 thrusters
6*10t*earthgravity=588kN

Pretty close to even.
Don't know if 100t to LLO is correct?

EDIT: I just checked
3000m/s LLO velocity
isp of 370 gives 3 for Mass Fraction
360t/120t=3 for mass fraction
So 240t of fuel.
I think I did that right.

Probably there will be 9 thrusters - angle between visible groups of thrusters looks like 120 degree

to LLO we need mass fraction of 2.4
 (3000m/s dv, 360s isp)
 exp((3000m/s)/(360s*force))=2.33mf
2.4mf*100t=240t
so 140t prop

100t vehicle (120t vehicle - 10t flaps - 10t tiles)
150t payload
140t fuel for back to LLO
(100t+150t+140t)*moongravity=630kN

9 10t GOX/GCH4 thrusters
9*10t*earthgravity=882kN

882/630=1.4 T/W

Hows that? Any better?

EDIT: Damn had the wrong LLO delta V Should be 2000m/s.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39942.0

Table shows 1848m/s from surface to 110km  if I am reading it correctly.

exp((2000m/s)/(360s*force))=1.76mf
Too tired to redo calcs...




« Last Edit: 04/30/2020 07:09 pm by rsdavis9 »
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Liked: 1168
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #34 on: 04/30/2020 06:57 pm »
i noticed this:

Several Starships serve distinct purposes in enabling human landing missions, each based on the common Starship design. A propellant storage Starship will park in low-Earth orbit to be supplied by a tanker Starship. The human-rated Starship will launch to the storage unit in Earth orbit, fuel up, and continue to lunar orbit.

Offline t3kboi

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Denver, CO
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #35 on: 04/30/2020 07:01 pm »
I didn't see a new thread for SS lunar lander yet - but I would just comment that in the third image - the entire top of the nose is covered in solar panels, there appear to be 2 "habitation decks", and we see a new render for a door and a lift system.

 ;D

[edit:]  nevermind... hadn't refreshed my browser to see the lunar starship thread....

[moderator zubenelgenubi: Yes, please perform some simple checks like browser refresh in such a situation.]
« Last Edit: 04/30/2020 07:28 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline livingjw

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • New World
  • Liked: 5857
  • Likes Given: 2887
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #36 on: 04/30/2020 07:02 pm »
I can envision an early (in life) Starship scenario where the Moonship is refueled and sent (without crew) to the moon kitted out with a complete moonbase starter kit. It would never leave. Later launches of Artemis assets could bring people and other equipment and supplies. The base could grow from there.

John

Offline supersubie

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #37 on: 04/30/2020 07:14 pm »
Man the Orion capsule / Lop G is going to look absolutely ridiculous docked to the Starship Moon lander (can we get a swanky name for this version please). It just out classes anything else on the drawing board by an order of magnitude.

I am personally really really surprised the Boeing isn't even in the shortlist... Thats the most shocking thing about this to me.


Offline mainmind

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #38 on: 04/30/2020 07:17 pm »
Does anyone have a link for the conops for this lunar starship? Here are my questions:

1. How does it get to lunar orbit the first time? Does this always stay between the lunar surface and NRHO once in place?
2. How is it refueled in NRHO? How many launches from Earth does it take to get a tanker to NRHO with sufficient fuel?

Thanks

Offline Wargrim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Berlin, Germany
  • Liked: 1029
  • Likes Given: 552
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #39 on: 04/30/2020 07:29 pm »
I had to check if it was April 30 or April 1 when i read the news.  ;D

I really did not expect a Starship derivate anywhere in the near term lunar plans of NASA after the reveal of Dragon XL. But as it is now, NASA seems to be quite happy with such a large selection of providers and technology approaches. Good!

I also litterally laughed out loud when i read the price breakdown between the three offers.

From a non-cynical and non-political perspective, it appears that the unproven "belly flop" during atmospheric reentry might have been a big risk in the eyes of NASA for a human transport system, and that part of Starhip's development will not be needed for the Lunar surface <-> Gateway human taxi mission.

Accepting a Starship-derived offer for a ~2024 introdction also demonstrates considerable trust in SpaceX's development speed.

Despite me laughing about the price difference, i think the other two proposals are very cool, too. I can see them take on different mission profiles on and around the moon, provided that all three enter service.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0